a needed change in the ai for next patch

[Flamer123]

there's a really stupid exploit that should be corrected next patch:

it usually takes 2-3 turns for me to caputre 1-3 cities after i DOW on someone. However, it always takes the computer 3 or more turns to rally his SOD to counter. (troop movements till mid game is only 6 tiles in 3 turns, later switching to 9)
the thing is that whenever the ai loses a city it always agrees for peace. so whenever i see a SOD coming my way to reclaim the city, and i know there's not a chance in hell i'll survive it, i just ask for peace having gained 1-3 cities, wait for 10 turns, and repeat.

the ai probably calculates "loss of cities" as a major defeat - enough that if he loses a single city, he agrees for peace instantly. however, this completely disregards the position and force of the troops in the field - the ai would have probably acted the same if he's #1 on soliders rank, and i'm last. (come to think of it, it's usually the case).

i play on immortal agg ai btw.

 

[Jeppson]

Yes I agree, your completely right. I have that scenario happen to me several times. The ai should be more stubborn to accept a peace unless it gets its cities back (through diplomacy) or if a continuing of the war would result in further losses.

 

[hoopsnerd]

there's a really stupid exploit that should be corrected next patch:

it usually takes 2-3 turns for me to caputre 1-3 cities after i DOW on someone. However, it always takes the computer 3 or more turns to rally his SOD to counter. (troop movements till mid game is only 6 tiles in 3 turns, later switching to 9)
the thing is that whenever the ai loses a city it always agrees for peace. so whenever i see a SOD coming my way to reclaim the city, and i know there's not a chance in hell i'll survive it, i just ask for peace having gained 1-3 cities, wait for 10 turns, and repeat.

the ai probably calculates "loss of cities" as a major defeat - enough that if he loses a single city, he agrees for peace instantly. however, this completely disregards the position and force of the troops in the field - the ai would have probably acted the same if he's #1 on soliders rank, and i'm last. (come to think of it, it's usually the case).

i play on immortal agg ai btw.

What game speed? The Ai usually refuses to talk to me for a good amount of time, at least 10 turns (I play marathon).

 

[DrewBledsoe]

What game speed? The Ai usually refuses to talk to me for a good amount of time, at least 10 turns (I play marathon).

Yep me too, in the odd game where I've conquered a little really backward nation very quickly (say Rifles vs Longbows), I've often conquered them completely, and they went to greet their gods "refusing to talk"

 

[Flamer123]

i play on normal speed. In my experience, if u capture a city, the computer turns his "refuse to talk" off as early as the turn after u declare war. it won't turn it off for quite a while unless i take a city. For instance, a backstab from the comp is really difficult for me cause I'm in no poistion to take a city, and i need to face that SOD cause the ai's still on "refuse to talk".

jeppson, i think u're right, i think the ai should be stubborn and demand at least his cities back if the player is the one suggesting the peace.
I think that the core programming problem is that the ai probably calculates how it did in the war instead of the probability of future success.
If blake doesn't solve it, the patch should at least change the minimum time for "refuse to talk" after DOW to 10 turns on normal.

 

[DrewBledsoe]

i play on normal speed. In my experience, if u capture a city, the computer turns his "refuse to talk" off as early as the turn after u declare war. it won't turn it off for quite a while unless i take a city. For instance, a backstab from the comp is really difficult for me cause I'm in no poistion to take a city, and i need to face that SOD cause the ai's still on "refuse to talk".

jeppson, i think u're right, i think the ai should be stubborn and demand at least his cities back if the player is the one suggesting the peace.
I think that the core programming problem is that the ai probably calculates how it did in the war instead of the probability of future success.
If blake doesn't solve it, the patch should at least change the minimum time for "refuse to talk" after DOW to 10 turns on normal.

I disagree on the last point. Take my example, of an isolated backward nation, that is running around with longbows and mace and you invade with cannons, cavalry and rifles. I've also often had said backward nation offer to be my vassal (often with many more cities than me) almost straight away, when it realises it is hopelessly outmatched.

Any manditory turn limit, would negate this option.In principle though, I agree with your point, but its difficult to actually make it work for all cases.

 

[Flamer123]

mandatory turn limit is not a good alternative, but it's better than none at all if the comp is playing stupidly. in the case u've given, the ai should calculate his current troop number and tech, see that he doesn't have a chance, then beg for peace himself each and every turn. however, it calculates (i think) how it did in the war - who cares? great defeats can sometime change to great conquests (WWII for example).

that exploit allows me to win domination 100% on empire, and at least 75% on immortal (ever had a backstab domino effect on immortal? now that's rough...)

 

[Olleus]

Have you all forgoten how the AI used to be on Vanilla/Warlords?
There was a mandatory period of 15 turns during which the AI would never make peace, which was stupid. In the modern age I can easily take 3-5 cities per turn if I launch a well prepared blitzkreig. If the AI is loosing, it should be prepared to accept peace on almost any terms. It should only demand its cities back if its in a position to recapture them militarily.

 

[Flamer123]

i forgot that about vanilla, have'nt played that for quite a while. But as u pointed out, in modern age (and even before), it's very easy to launch a well coordinated attack on the ai and caputre 3-5 cities. but then the computer just gives in to ur demands - 10 turns later, rinse and repeat. the ai SOD needs more than 3 turns to counter, so what's the point of the ai giving in in less time than that?
easy algorithm - if (troops strength ai >= troops strength attacker) don't accept peace unless the attacker gives back the captured cities.
a lot better algorithm can be found that would depend on the position of the troops, but as the situation is now, this exploit is an almost sure domination win on immortal.

 

[hoopsnerd]

I disagree on the last point. Take my example, of an isolated backward nation, that is running around with longbows and mace and you invade with cannons, cavalry and rifles. I've also often had said backward nation offer to be my vassal (often with many more cities than me) almost straight away, when it realises it is hopelessly outmatched.

Any manditory turn limit, would negate this option.In principle though, I agree with your point, but its difficult to actually make it work for all cases.

Yeah -- it must be depenedant on AI personality or something. Sometimes when I'm wupping up on an AI they want to vassalize right away, other times they refuse to talk until they are totally destroyed.

 

[Yzman]

i forgot that about vanilla, have'nt played that for quite a while. But as u pointed out, in modern age (and even before), it's very easy to launch a well coordinated attack on the ai and caputre 3-5 cities. but then the computer just gives in to ur demands - 10 turns later, rinse and repeat. the ai SOD needs more than 3 turns to counter, so what's the point of the ai giving in in less time than that?
easy algorithm - if (troops strength ai >= troops strength attacker) don't accept peace unless the attacker gives back the captured cities.
a lot better algorithm can be found that would depend on the position of the troops, but as the situation is now, this exploit is an almost sure domination win on immortal.

I don't really think that would solve this either because just because the civ is strong doesn't mean it is in any position to reconquer the cities. What if they are on a different continent or something?

There is so many factors to take into consideration.

 

[Dominico]

I think the reason the ai is doing this is because you are a long way more powerfull then them. In which case its not that bad on its behalf.

When i am playing if i ask the ai peace it will not do it if i have caught a city and it is similar or more powerfull then me. Try the game on a harder level and it will be harder to do this to the ai i would hope. If you are already on a hard level you are just too good at the game!! Play online

 

[MrTomothy]

I have seen cases of another Civ demanding one of its cities back if you have taken them, or one of yours if you haven't taken one yet. I think it depends on what the power differences between your civs are. I played on Noble level, so going higher might make them more stubborn.

 

[Flamer123]

so , i decided to post some savegames of my last game.
playing elizabeth, suryavarman is my closest friend, and i still backstab him cause he's #1 in score (or maybe just because i'm an ass). i'm dead last in solider rating, and he's first.

1585 - i declare war
1590 - "refuse to talk"
1595 - after i capture a city, it stops "refuse to talk" , i can sue peace, but only if i return the city
1600 - i can sue peace without returning the city

through it all, nothing's changed in solider rating - i'm still last, he's still first.

1635 - after i capture the 2nd city, his SOD finally cam (near angkor wat), so i sue for peace with 2 cities gain and some cash. solider rating are still the same..... moreover, that SOD could have easily crush me and regain those 2 cities.
One more thing - at that point i know he'll sue for peace, so i can just use my toughest soliders to hit his SOD one by one if the attack % are fair, so that's free upgrades as well...

it took me a few more rinse and repeat till i finished him. one time "refuse to talk" was on when his SOD was near my city. compared to that original SOD it was weak, and couldn't do the job. when he lost it, i knew i didn't need to use this exploit again, so i stayed on war and finished his cities one by one.

 

[DrewBledsoe]

so , i decided to post some savegames of my last game.
playing elizabeth, suryavarman is my closest friend, and i still backstab him cause he's #1 in score (or maybe just because i'm an ass). i'm dead last in solider rating, and he's first.

1585 - i declare war
1590 - "refuse to talk"
1595 - after i capture a city, it stops "refuse to talk" , i can sue peace, but only if i return the city
1600 - i can sue peace without returning the city

through it all, nothing's changed in solider rating - i'm still last, he's still first.

1635 - after i capture the 2nd city, his SOD finally cam (near angkor wat), so i sue for peace with 2 cities gain and some cash. solider rating are still the same..... moreover, that SOD could have easily crush me and regain those 2 cities.
One more thing - at that point i know he'll sue for peace, so i can just use my toughest soliders to hit his SOD one by one if the attack % are fair, so that's free upgrades as well...

it took me a few more rinse and repeat till i finished him. one time "refuse to talk" was on when his SOD was near my city. compared to that original SOD it was weak, and couldn't do the job. when he lost it, i knew i didn't need to use this exploit again, so i stayed on war and finished his cities one by one.

If you KNOW it's an exploit, and you can exploit it like so, then have some self control, and stop doing it